walls, who knock down barriers, who imagine something different and have the courage to make it happen. the courage to bring communities together, who make even the small impossibilities a shining example of what is possible. and that, more than anything, will shape what northern ireland looks like 15 years from now and eyond. all of you -- every single young person here today -- possess something the generation before yours did not, and that is an example to follow. hen those who took a chance on

peace got started, they didn't have a successful model to emulate. they didn't know how it would work. but they took a chance. and so far, it has succeeded. nd the first steps are the hardest and requires the most courage. the rest, now, is up to you. "peace is indeed harder than war," the irish author colum mccann recently wrote. "and its constant fragility is part of its beauty. a bullet need happen only once, but for peace to work we need to be reminded of its existence again and again and again." and that's what we need from you.

that's what we need from every young person in northern ireland, and that's what we need from every young person around the world. you must remind us of the existence of peace -- the ossibility of peace. ou have to remind us of hope again and again and again. despite resistance, despite setbacks, despite hardship, despite tragedy, you have to remind us of the future again and again and again. i have confidence you will choose that path, you will embrace that task. and to those who choose the path of peace, i promise you the united states of america will support you every step of the way. we will always be a wind at your back. and as i said when i visited two years ago, i am convinced that this little island that inspires

the biggest of things -- this little island, its best days are yet ahead. good luck. god bless you. and god bless all the people of northern ireland. thank you. [applause] captioning by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> following the final meetings of the g8 summit president obama heads to berlin germany. he'll deliver an address and meet with the head of the social democratic party for the next election. then he attend a dinner before he and the first lady return to the yilets. >> at the g8 summit president obama met with david cameron

on european leaders transatlantic trade and investment partnership. his is 15 minutes. >> good afternoon and kell come everyone. i always said that the whole point of this meeting is to fire up our economies and drive growth and prosperity around the world, to do things that make a real difference to people's lives. and there is no more powerful way to do that than by boosting trade and than by launching these negotiations on a landmark deal between the european union and the united states of america.

could at 80 billion pounds to the u.s. economy and 85 billion pounds to the rest of the world. two million extra jobs, more choice and lower prices in our shops. we're talking about what could be the biggest bilateral trade deal in history. a deal that will have a greater impact than all the other trade deals put together. when we last met at camp david and suggested we could reach this moment many doubted it would be possible. everyone knows these trade deals are difficult. some take years to get off the ground and some never happen at all. it's a testament to the leadership of everyone here we've reached this point. we must maintain that political will in the months ahead. -- once in a

generation opportunity and we must seize it. >> today we announced we will start negotiations of a transatlantic trade and partnership agreement. frankly, two years ago few bet that today we'd be in a position to launch negotiations of an ambitious united states free trade agreement. and when the teams of the commission will meet for the first round of negotiations next month, it will be the start of a giant undertaking of real importance. our giant endeavor is part of our overall agenda for growth and jobs to both sides of the atlantic by boosting trade and investment. is also powerful of all the determination to do this. we intend to move forward fast.

we can say that not give up content for the sake of speed t intend to make rapid progress. moving our regimes closer and addressing the harmful esk of behind the border trade barriers. huge economic benefits are expected from reducing red tape. i would rather have our companies invest in new products and services and job reation than in multiple inspections or manufacturing lines. we need to build bridges faster. we must join forces and to do more with less. more importantly in doing so we will remain strong global players who set the standards for the 21st century. call on our legislators, our

regulators, our society to play constructive part in these negotiations. the business communities on both sides of the atlantic in particular have been a strong advocate of free trade and investment between europe and united states. and this is also good for the rest of the world. given the integrated supply chains in today's markets everyone can benefit from this agreement. integrating two of the most developed, most sophisticated and the largest economies of the world can never be an easy task. but we'll find answers to legitimate concerns. we'll find solutions to issues. we'll keep our eyes on the prize and we'll succeed. so even if negotiations may not be easy, i'm sure they will be worth it for the sake of the jobs it creates. to write the next chapter of

history also forged by the same principles and values of open economies and open societies. >> thank you very much. president obama. >> well thank you very much david and good afternoon. it is wonderful to be here. thank you so much to the people of northern ireland for their warm hospitality and prime minister cameron thank you for all the outstanding arrangements. among the things we'll discuss here are promoting new jobs and growth on both sides of the at lant i can. and i'm proud to announce the launch of negotiations to help us do that. the trade and investment partnership, i want to thank but entlemen on this stage the others in the meeting. i'm proud to say america will

be proud to host the first round of negotiations next month in washington. is u.s. e.u. relationship the largest in the world. we trade about a trillion dollars in goods and services each year and invest 4 trillion in each other's committees. and this potentially groundbreaking partnership would deepen those ties. it would increase exports, decrease barriers to trade and investment. as broader it would support thousands of jobs on both sides of the ocean. i'm pleased to hear this enjoys the support of the broader e.u. membership. it's been warmly received in the united states in congress and our business community. and that broad support will help us work through some of

the tough issue that is have been mentioned. there are going to be sensitivities on both sides and politics on both sides. but if we can look beyond the narrow concerns to stay focused on the big picture, the importance of this partnership, i'm hopeful we can achieve the high standard comprehensive agreement that the global trading system is looking to us to develop. america and europe have done extraordinary things together before and i believe we can forge an economic aligns as strong. by doing that we can strengthen the multilateral trading system. so this transatlantic trade and partnership is going to be a priorityty of mine and my administration. it is important we get it right and that means resisting the temptation to down size our ambitions or avoiding tough

issues just for the sake of getting a deal. it's important we also make sure it's part of an overall plan to promote growth and jobs. trade is critical but it is not a silver bullet. it has to be part of a strategy ji we pursue on both side. i look forward to working with my fellow leaders to make it happen. we're going to give a strong mandate to our negotiators but we will have to intervene and break through log jams nevertheless i am confident we can get it done. thank you very much. >> now we're going to hear from the president of the european council. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen this. is a special moment. at the last e.u. summit with president obama we wanted to see if launching such would be it was. .

and now we can already start talks. a year and a half ago we weren't even sure the place had a door and now we are entering the negotiating room together. it's a sign of the strong political will on both sides this. february in the european council our european heads of state and government reiterated this report for a comprehensive trade and investment deal with the united states. a political signal formalized last friday when ministers and the irish presidency formally gave the negotiators the green light to start the talks. it shows the political will to work together, to work together with our long standing and most trusted partner on the essential objective for governments on either side of the atlantic, grollingt, jobs and prosperity. we both know that there are no magic solutions. recent economic turbulence, but

we cannot expect to harvest new jobs today, we can plan for the jobs of tomorrow. and that's exactly what the trade agreement is about. together europe and the united states are the backbone of the world economy. opening up that space further for opportunities for business and consumers is simply common sense. not just our own economies but also those of our trading partners will benefit. the positive ramifications will go own beyond the economy as such. we are making our economies all over the world more interdependent and this will make the world safer. what is at stake with the transatlantic free trade area is to enshine europe and america's role standard status by setting a positive force in shaping the way we work and live our daily lives. this is of key strategic

significance. the atlantic is not the past. it is also the future. that's why we are impatient to start. although we know that negotiations won't be a smooth ride. obviously there are and will be sensitive issues on each side. with flexibility, open mindness and cretetivity the greatest asset for negotiators i'm confident we will find solutions. there is too much at stake. we will find solutions because we know the great benefit it will bring, not only because we share the same approach at home and abroad, but also because trade is one vital part of our overall relationship. it will knit us closer together. the negotiations stand for our

continued commitment to engage with each other in order to engage with the world. the e.u. are ready to engage and look forward to the new landscape we shape together. >> thank you. >> we'll be welcoming the other guest and we'll be taking questions at the end of the g8 at the end of our discussion. hank you very much indeed. >> coming up on spon john rob berlts on the first ladies. followed by efforts to reduce the nation's dependency on oil. and then president obama speaks to students belfast ireland. >> tuesday keith alexander testifies before the house

intelligence committee. the committee is examining the agency's surveillance programs. see it live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. tuesday a confirmation hearing for thomas wheeler president obama's choice to lead the federal communications commission. he'll testify live starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> it was essential to remove france from canada for the united states as it became to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. and i few people led by franklin recognized the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago. the american achievement, people of two and a half

million free people for them to get the british to evict the french from their borders and then the french help them evict the british was an astonishing achievement. >> the yilets as a world power saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern part of book tv this following season one of c-span weekend. series "first ladies: influence and image" our series continues. >> that begins tonight with john robert on his bookthis is one hour. . >> i wanted to ask a question. before i do that, i prefaced it by saying i would like to get a show of hands from people. if you could take a look, am i just right for the season?

maybe in florida. anybody who things i am, raise your hands. anybody who thinks it is premature? thank you. welcome to the world of first adies. generally, when we look at first ladies, we talked about in terms of their fashion sense, whether it is mainly eisenhower's famous pink, and we think about how they have influenced society and think about them as white house ostesses and we pay more attention to things like how they dress and whether they are appropriately dressed and how much power they have over the events that shape our future and country. when i started to write about first ladies, i decided i was more interested in a different aspect of their job in the white house. was not so much interested in

finding out how they entertained, what they did at state dinners, but i wanted to know how they have shaped history, how did they work as part of the political partnership. and were they in fact political partners? or were first ladies really just social appendixes to the presidency. the historical record is a bit mixed. as you look at first ladies, you can find a tremendous amount of information about what they served at a state dinner, how they rated the centerpieces on the table, what kind of clothing they wore. we know when harriet lane was ntroduced, her dress had 100 yards of lace in it, if you can imagine. i cannot quite figure out, how do you get 100 yards of lace into a dress but she did it. she had artificial flowers woven into her hair. we know what her makeup was like. all of this information was chronicled back in the 19th century and is preserved in

newspapers and books published as long back as 1881, when we had the first comprehensive book on first ladies to ever appear. what is harder to find is the role that first ladies had in shaping contemporary events in political campaigns. it is there. because i am a campaign animal, i started out in politics, as pat mentioned, quite early. i loved it. i got the political bug. wanted to know what these ladies did on campaigns. the first place i looked. the reason is because i had experienced a first lady on a campaign in 1980 and i knew they are not passive partners, at least not the one i work for. nancy reagan, who is one of my favorite first ladies, was a strong, assertive partner in a political marriage. she stayed that way from the first time ronald reagan ran for

governor until his final reelection campaign. in the 1980 campaign, she made her influence felt everywhere. those of us who worked on the staff knew well she had a point of view about his schedule, the activities of where he went and what he said. she shaped the speeches and she had a point of view regarding the press and how they treated her and how they treated him nd she had favorites and enemies. ur job was to know the difference and make sure we ran a campaign that reflected the way they, as a couple, wanted it to be run. i was fairly certain this was probably not a unique phenomenon, that, if i look hard, i would find first ladies had a hand in a lot of other interesting things in our history. there are so many i cannot begin to get into, but the one area i want to focus on tonight is

skeletons and scandals and how first ladies handle political crises. not all the political crises are about close but some of them are. anyone who remembers the early 1980s knows how much trouble nancy reagan got into over close. looking back on it, it is kind of a silly thing that her poll ratings became so negative just over the issue of assignor clothing in the white house. i was reading an article the other day about the oscars. it turns out the clothes and purse designers and accessory designers fight to get a celebrity to carry their product. there is a whole industry that is sprung up about creating gift rooms in hotels where the celebrities stay at the oscars and the celebrities can come in and pick up any freebies they want. in fact, so many things are given away to them in the hopes they will wear it once and be photographed that the irs is talking about trying to figure out what the value of that is so hey can tax them for it.

back in 1981, when nancy reagan got in trouble over designer clothes that were lent to her but not returned, it was a serious political matter. she was not the first. going back to mary lincoln, clothes had been a problem for omen in the white house. i do not know if we have any lincoln scholars in the room tonight. i am sure there are people familiar with that presidency. there was one time where in a single month she bought three kinds of different gloves. there was one time, in a single month, when she heads and 1000 pairs of gloves. when she left the white house, she was terribly in debt. she was getting these clothes from merchants all around dc on redit. then she would stand her staff out to beat up on the merchants to get them to forgive the

debt. they wanted to be paid. she ended up trying to auction off her clothes after she left the white house. he was in many ways one of the most fascinating first ladies simply because of the multiple aspects of arson alley that were dysfunctional -- aspects of personality that were dysfunctional. she had two suitors who might have been presidents, both douglas and lake and and she chose lincoln because she felt he was the one who could win -- llis and lincoln and she chose lincoln because she felt he was the one who could win. she made julia grant back away from her in a room as if she were royalty. you never turn your back on royalty. she may have had problems with

close and money and spending, but they never amounted to a political crisis in her presidency. i call it her presidency ecause i think it really was. she was absolutely a partner in that undertaking. she sat in on cabinet meetings and made recommendations on when to hire and fire cabinet members. he was very much involved in he day-to-day aspects of his political career and his governance. i began to wonder if this was true in the 19th century. going as far back as abigail adams and martha washington, you find that first ladies laid an active role in the white house and in the campaigns that it took to get there. have a gail adams was a campaign strategist for her husband -- abigail adams was a campaign strategist for her husband.

they would talk incessantly about all addicts of the day,, legislation that needed to be passed, -- when he needed to do to win more support. this hidden history, to me, is one of the most fascinating and overlooked areas of presidential history. one of the parts that i'm drawn to very much are the aspects of political crisis and how people get through a bad crisis. when you think about political crises come i think impeachment is about at the top of the list. i don't know if any of you read if any of you followed the recent impeachment trial in the senate, but i was not familiar with the earlier impeachments, like the johnson impeachment in the 19th century.

some of karl johnson, it turns out, was an adviser to her husband much in the way that hillary clinton was to bill clinton in the more recent impeachment. i was in washington during that impeachment to do tv shows. when i read what happened in the johnson presidency, i was struck by the similarities between hillary and eliza. she had, for a reef time in the civil war, been a war refugee here -- for a brief time in the civil war, been a war refugee. lincoln at first gave him a governorship and then later made him vice president. unfortunately for eliza johnson and the family, at the time he was first made a territorial

governor for lincoln, she was in confederates occupied territory in tennessee. for about two months, she had to get across the lines. her family would sleep in barnes and on the roadside. they would get to a point where two armies would meet only to be turned back by confederate commanders and have to find another way through. eventually, she managed to reunite with her husband. a tough woman. this is not the kind of woman who would easily give up in an impeachment crisis. but the impeachment crisis came about because i'm a few remember your history, johnson tried to remove secretary of war stanton and stanton refused to vacate the office and congress passed a law that said that the president did have the right to finish a tenure early. they decided to have a showdown. they pushed it by trying to get rid of stanton.

he was the toughest of the cabinet in how to deal with the south. johnson didn't want to see the south plundered. stanton wanted to plunder the south. this led to a showdown that lasted several months. in which utilize a mccardle johnson, on a daily basis, met with her husband, talked about who he could rely on and who you couldn't, help figure out who his allies were and his enemies. they were in that thing together all the way through. in her own way, she was like a hillary clinton. i think hillary was brilliant in handling this most recent impeachment crisis. the right wing conspiracy was perfect. politically, it was brilliantly done. i say that without regard to

partisan affiliation. i work for a republican president. but i am not up here to talk about who is right and who is wrong on the politics of it, in terms of democrats and republicans. i'm just talking about managing an impeachment crisis and admiring very good handiwork. however, i think, when it comes to crisis management, probably my all-time favorite is gloria harding. the harding president was one of those presidencies that look to great at the time. he was a popular president. he had tremendous public support. and he managed, for a good time, to fool people. what people couldn't see was how corrupt that the administration was from the inside out. it's modern-day equivalent would be like allowing enron to drill a strategic oil reserve.

that is exactly what was happening with teapot film. the members of harding's cabinet were taking oil reserves and secretly selling them off to oil companies. mrs. harding, who came from an interesting journalistic background, she was a tough newspaper woman. she was probably part of the entire corrupt affair that was the harding white house. they had a circle of cronies that was called the ohio gang. they were figuring out literally how to loot the country. the veterans bureau secretary probably stole about $200 million in money that was supposed to go toward world war i veterans. the ohio gang openly sold all sorts of government licenses and commissions and they literally set up shop on k street. they went in the door at.

you paid them some money and you got whatever you wanted. the corruption was unparalleled and we haven't seen anything remotely close to it. even abramoff's fees are nothing by comparison. i have known him for a long time. i was astonished to find out some of the things that he had been a two. -- he had been up to. historically, the harding administration went far beyond that. and florence harding managed to the sets of political crises much would've then warren harding did. i had a lot of problems. they had to figure out how to handle some of this when it first began. they had to tell some of the ringleaders, when they were going to be caught, that they had 24 hours to clear out of the country.

in more than one case, it worked. and evade being aggressive -- being arrested. it worked until one whistleblower committed suicide or was killed, but most likely committed suicide. florence harding decided that it would be best to put more distance between themselves in washington. they went on a whistle stop tour of washington and california. this is when harding fell ill and died. that brought everything out into the open. she spent the that are part of months burning records. she went to white house records, personal bank records command took all the evidence that she felt could be misinterpreted -- and i think that was [laughter] and it was burned, gone just like that.

so those are a couple of vignettes that i want to throw out there about first ladies and scandals to whet your appetite for the question-and-answer section. but also to show that first ladies are not simply in the white house to pursue charitable causes or philanthropic activities. most of them do and most of them take a philanthropic activity for political reason, but they really are are political creatures just like their husbands. very few marriages withstand politics at that level unless both artie's to the marriage want to be -- both parties to the marriage want to be in the game. there is too much pressure. it's too intense and it is too hard to do. by the time you make it to the white house, for the most part, they are both fully committed to the game in the business of all it takes. -- up politics.

i think it's time we started taking first lady seriously and looking harder at what they do, what role they play. i would even like to see first ladies debate when we have presidential campaigns. [laughter] for years, we found out what the first lady's recipe for baking cookies is. let's find out what their recipe is for handling some of the real issues. with that, i welcome any questions. >> what i've noticed in as far as what i have interpreted myself, do you think that a person like nancy reagan, following that relationship, was so determined to protect her husband, to keep them safe, to keep them out of harms way and then i take a person like hillary clinton who i think was

in tune to capitalize on the advantages of where her husband was and manipulate it to where she could capitalize and progress on her own agenda. >> that is what she is doing. >> there are two different forms of doing it. i think george bush talks to his wife. there is not a husband in the world who doesn't sit down and talk to his wife. what do you think of hillary clinton versus a nancy reagan type of approach? >> it is a good illustration when you look at the differences between the two, partly the generational phenomenon, i think. but the nancy reagan-ronald reagan partnership was more like

the james polk and sarah polk partnership. they had a tree nuptial agreement. when he proposed to her, she said yes provided he did not interfere with his running for the senate. she correctly figured out that come as speaker of the house, he was the most important politician in the land, more so than andrew jackson because the speakers who has to translate the agenda into real legislation. his nickname was young hickory and andrew jackson was old hickory. they worked as a team. sarah polk helped write his speeches. she talked all it took -- he talked politics with the other members of congress to see how they were leaning. she would sound them out. she would help get legislation through.

nancy reagan is more in that kind of mold. she was throughout the career in sacramento and washington both attuned to ronald reagan's agenda and how to get that agenda in act it. -- that agenda enacted. she was an intellectual. she had strong views with regard to the soviet union come out with how to pursue arms-control initiatives, views on issues like south africa. and she made them known. namely inside the closed circle. she didn't take her differences of opinion public. but inside the white house itself, she was not at all reticent about getting involved in political matters that mattered most to her. she didn't have any separate ambition. i think the difference with hillary clinton and bill clinton is that these were two people who came together in a different era, both of them very

competent, one of them perhaps more politically astute than the other. i think that she was maybe the one who was more politically astute. and she was determined to do carry on in her own right afterwards and has made a fascinating transition that no other first lady has even attempted. perhaps the closest to it would be a lenore roosevelt in the sense that she did carry on with an independent political career after fdr's death, going into the un as a delegate and becoming an activist on the world scene. but i think it is partly a generational thing. i would imagine that we will see more of the hillary model of first ladies in the future. women will have their own career and their own independent objectives and will use the position of first lady to advance. laura bush looks to be the opposite of what i said should happen because she is a in a much more traditional role right

now. but there is a pendulum effect. every time we have a really activist first lady who is controversial, we tend to be followed with a first lady who has a much more traditional role. after eleanor roosevelt, bess truman did her best to avoid controversy to and so did eisenhower. after florence harding, grace coolidge did her best to stay out of the limelight. even though i think we are evolving toward a more openly political first lady role, it will be a slow devolution. and every so often, it will shift back. >> is it true that mrs. wilson virtually ran the country during her husband's disability? >> yes, the second mrs. wilson did. edith galt wilson. it is a time they called the regency, her reason see.

it lasted from september 1919 until january 1920. he was convalescent, stricken probably with a stroke. there was some controversy over what -- over what caused it. initially, the fact that he had been stricken had been kept secret, even from the vice president. his doctor knew. she knew. people in the cabinet figured out something was wrong because they would come by and demand to see the president to get some important issue addressed and no one would be allowed in to see him. she would listen to them and she would go into the room and she would come out of the room and she would relay what she said he told her. [laughter] in some cases, some of the cabinet members figured out it couldn't be so because they didn't think wilson would decide this on whatever the particular issue was. historians are a little bit uncertain over whether she was translating his wishes or whether she was in fact doing what she thought was best. there is some evidence that he

should have listened to her more carefully if indeed she was running the country because his most important priority was getting the league of nations treaty ratified. and he came down to a very close vote. and the senate majority, the democratic leader in the senate came to meet with them to advise him that he needed to compromise with the republican isolationists if they were going to the get the treaty ratified. she wanted to compromise and he refused to. so her political judgment was probably the better in a case. if he had -- he might've had the crowning a compliment that he sought. she actually claimed not to have voted in the most recent election and was apolitical as far as anyone can tell. but after she met him, she became very involved in politics.

she would attend debates in the house of representatives. she read everything she could. she boned up on it and learned and became vital to him. she even bothered to learn communications codes so that she could translate the wartime cables that came into the white house. they all came encoded. she would translate the cables for him and take his instructions and put them in code and send them back out to the military. this very unusual woman, who claimed not to be involved in politics at all, once she was there at the seat of our, grabbed hold of it and went with it. yes. >> thank you for your presentation. what about mrs. carter? my memory of her was of ruling the roost. i wonder if that is true. >> i think she got an unfair press in the sense that first

ladies who really do become involved in politics openly draw a lot of criticism during and she would attend some cabinet meetings and that was highly controversial in the 1970s. i remember very well that her mere attendance suggested to some people that she viewed herself as an equal to members of the cabinet. and by the way, i should say wo word about that. there's no place in the world that is more hierarchical than the white house. it is an absolute rigid hierarchy. you go into the cabinet word -- cabinet room, he each person has his or her own chair. they are free to take the chairs within when they leave the government, but they have to pay for the chair. i don't know what the current cost is. it used to be $1200. the polar very careful about those chairs. and staff never sit at the cabinet table.

if you look at the pictures when you see the resident unique cabinet meeting, you will notice, in the cabinet room, that there are rows of chairs that line the room itself during you will see people sitting -- itself during you will see people sitting in those chairs line the room itself. you will see people sitting in those chairs. they are staffed. when you realize that there is a hierarchical sense that drives a white house and you see a wide sitting at the table, you can see -- and you see a wife sitting at the table, you can see how some people got their hackles up. helen taft would bar dreaded to cabinet meetings to if she didn't know what was going on and wanted to know, she would sit down and learn. it is not an unusual thing. but mrs. carter was seen doing it publicly. it was something that would --

that became publicly known. in terms of how she handled the job of being first lady, she was probably one of the most professional. it has been common since the 1930s for first ladies to have a professional staff usually consisting of a press secretary, scheduler, maybe a social secretary, speechwriters, but rosslyn carter took it to a new level of professionalism. she actually designed a hollis e plan for her east wing office -- four -- she actually designed a policy plan for her east wing office. she was very active in some tough areas. she was active in having to deal with mental health, mental disability. education.

and she took it seriously. that also drew a lot of scrutiny at that time when i think people were not quite ready for another activist first lady. and she got a lot of criticism for that. but i think she did a great job in terms of being a partner in that presidency. when you have a one term presidency that sales at the end, it's kind of hard to say that the presidency itself was a success and therefore hard to say that the first lady was a success. but as a political pro, she was good. >> [indiscernible] >> the camp david accords were a brilliant achievement, absolutely brilliant. i think we probably all wish today that we had been able to see those accords built on before we got to the point where we are today. the carter presidency is underrated in some respects come a certainly on the romantic front. he is the only resident who has been able to achieve anything like that, getting egypt to recognize israel, getting israel to agree to begin

to pull back from #i. it was fantastic -- from mount sinai. it was fantastic. >> you talked about the difficulty that nancy reagan had with buying china and all of this. and that jacqueline kennedy had a rapport with the press. in today's world, with the media, nothing is not cap from the wreck in public for more than a minute, whether it isn't critical to build your relationship with the media and whether that could entirely change or success or failure as a first lady. >> you are taking thoughts right out of my head. that is part of what i did in politics for many years.

i worked with the press and i worked on image and advertising. i am a big believer that, if you are in politics, you need to build bridges to the press and understand how the press works. it is especially true for first ladies. there is a long history of first ladies being active with the press. we tend to think that it is only fairly. -- only recently that they have been scrutinized. but julie grant would sit down with newspaper or reporters along with ulysses s. grant. she would participate and not just talking about what they were going to do at the state dinner and how they would pay for the 25-course dinners. you do learn some fascinating things about first ladies and entertaining. the grant residency takes the cake. their dinners literally were 25- course dinners. you might have as many as 10 different varieties of wine with one of these dinners. they cost thousands upon thousands of dollars, far exceeding the president's annual salary. and there was no entertainment budget at the budget -- at the

house -- and there was no entertainment budget at the white house at the time. julia grant was caught up taking $2500 in cash in an envelope, which has never been explained where that came from. [laughter] but first ladies who were good with the press to have something in common and is that some of them worked in the press. jackie kennedy was a reporter for a while. florence harding actually ran a newspaper. florence took over the newspaper for a while. she decided she liked it so much that she stayed with it. after she left the white house, she went to running that newspaper. she really understood the press. when she went into the white house, she joked with the members of the press, talked with the boys come as she called them, off the record so that she

could be quoted when she want to but not when she didn't want to. she knew how the working press operated her and she they needed photographs. she was great at providing them with photo ops and getting herself in the papers. that is a trick that edith roosevelt also used. she knew the press were dying to get pictures of her kids, the family. so she would hire photographers to take the pictures and release them so that the rest was fed. they had the requirements met. and meeting the requirements of the press is one of the key things for a first lady if you want to be able to get along with them. you first have to understand them and then you have to give them what they need to get the job done. i used to do some of this in presidential trip planning. the reagan white house is probably appropriately famous for the fact that we knew how to handle the press very well. mike deaver was an absolute

genius in this. i worked with him on a number presidential trips where we had to figure out how to get our message across. when you know what the press needs and your respect those needs, you generally will get good rest. you're going to get better press than a few stiff the press can celebrities have finally figured this out. they are now staging pictures for the paparazzi so they don't have to put up with pictures they don't want being in print. >> do you honestly feel that the press coverage today is more adversarial than it was 15-20 years ago? we have 24-hour media all the time, so they have to create news. at times, i think they create,

you know, news that is more confusing than it really is an official. >> i actually think that the relationship between the presidency and the press has gotten a little bit less adversarial. probably the height of it was right after watergate in the 1970s. when i began working with the press in 1980, on the presidential level, the campaign level, there was almost an attitude among reporters that come if you are in politics, you had to be covering up something among reporters that, if you are in politics, you had to be covering up something. i have detected in the last couple of years this politicization -- these polemic position where there is the press told on one side and press on the other.

and then there was the perception that cnn was a similar type news outlet for the clinton administration, very pro-administration. those characterizations are not entirely fair, but it is a rough characterization that is true. i think the press is a little bit adversarial -- a little bit less adversarial today as a result. salaries in the press corps have gone up tremendously. back in the 1970s, reporters made a living wage. today, the celebrities of the media make millions of dollars a year. it is not unusual for reporters to be earning a decent six figures. the salaries in dc are on par with top members of government. so as they become more and more part of america's elite, i think it shows in their coverage. i am astonished occasionally at

some of the lack of interest that the press seems to show on details of stories that are really very big. i still do some work now producing for television. i guess i am critiquing my own profession a bit. whatever part of the blame is >> she seemed so devoted, but a deer in the headlines here >> you know, i liked pat nixon a lot. she had a really tough life and came from an external area background, a very humble background. she was born in ely, nevada. i had been to that part. i lived in nevada for a while. ely, nevada is an old mining town.

it is cold in the winter and it is sweltering hot in the summer. she was born there basically in a miners shack. it had a canvas roof. her mother died early. she basically had to raise her siblings herself. she was extraordinarily lucky to get into college and find a way to pay for it. from that very humble background, she ended up being next to, you know, the commander-in-chief and the president of the united states and maybe a little bit of the deer in the headlights comes from that. she certainly didn't grow up in those kinds of our full circles. in terms of the politics, i have to say that she, again, was very active in her husband's campaigns when he ran for senate. she helped write his speeches. she went door-to-door with literature. she helped devise some of the tax strategies that were

controversial in california. people said it was a really dirty campaign and she was there slinging the mud. toward the end, when the watergate crisis slowly unfolded, i think she probably fell into a bit of depression. >> i worked closely with john mclachlan, the speechwriter in the nixon white house. he felt that she had fallen into depression at that point. so strong woman, extra neri background, and i admire her in many -- extraordinary background, and i admire her in many respects. >> in 1999, file that a conference of the presidential library to experience how the relationship between lbj and his wife lady bird [indiscernible]

the archivists allowed us to listen in to some of the conversations that had been taped from telephone conversations between lbj and his wife while he was meeting with cabinet members. she was scolding him. what is your take on her as a first lady? >> they are all interesting come i guess. i am fascinated by them. but in her case, it is true. she was extremely bright. she grew up in a family that had quite a bit of money. she had a great education. she met lbj when he was in texas. he basically told her during a weekend courtship that she was going to be his wife. he was an extremely determined suitor. in fact, so was richard nixon. when he met pat nixon, he pulled the same thing. it was practically be for state and he said we are going to get married one of these days.

strange things happen between people who are driven to become presidents and their spouses. she threw herself into his work. she was one of the first wives to take a job in the senate, on the senate payroll. she ran his office. she later ended up buying a lot of media stations, radio and television in texas. again, one of the first leaders who understood how the press works. that helped him quite a lot. they were a partnership from the beginning, i would say. johnson was in some ways more of a stubborn president. i don't think he always listened to her. but i do know, in terms of working out the politics of the

day, they did a lot of talking and he at least heard her. >> jacqueline kennedy by contrast, i think of her [indiscernible] is that the correct impression of her was she also enwrapped in politics? >> she is an absolute cultural icon. no question about that. she campaigned. she would go out on the campaign trail. but she was pregnant. the only reason she curtailed her campaigning in the 1960 election was because her pregnancy was getting advanced and her doctors told her she needed to take it a little more easy. in that sense, she was a political wife. she got out and she didn't do as much as lady bird johnson. 80 bird johnson was one of the real active campaigners. in fact, the democratic

convention was built to must dates in such a way that would feature her in that convention. later, when lbj had a fallout in the southern states because of the civil rights act, she did a whistle stop train stuart -- train tour and it worked. it was very successful. in that sense, no, jacqueline kennedy was not as political a spouse. she helped him with some policy related things. she spoke french fluently. in 1959-1960, 1961, indochina was becoming a problem here in the best hooks on vietnam were in french -- becoming a problem. the best books on vietnam were in french. she would translate them into english so the president could read them. as a candidate, i believe she

did this before he was actually in the white house. so she was not as much involved in the day-to-day politics and that became a problem as first lady. she didn't understand why people would put on her schedule that she had to have her lunch with the congressional wives and that is a pretty congressional thing for the first lady to do. they are invited to a lunch at the white house and the first lady hosts it. jackie kennedy did not want do that. she wanted to do something more active. she became notorious at bailing on these events and calling on lady bird johnson to stand in her place. so lady bird would have to run to the west wing and fill-in whenever jackie decided to do something else. we will never know, but i think

she would have been a little bit of a rebellious spirit if the kennedy administration had gone on longer. and it might have caused some fallout, some flak. you can only snowball of those bde goes in washington so many times before -- you can only snub all of those egos in washington so may times before it comes back at you. >> do you know if there has ever been a second lady or a vice president with an influential role? was there every week first lady? >> that is a good question. there have been some weak first latest -- first ladies who did not do much of their duties. but i don't know of many vice presidential wives who stepped in other than in the kennedy

administration. that is a good question. you have given me something to look at. >> why do you think that american politics are threatened by such an intelligent woman? [laughter] >> you know, i was asked that question on a tv show just today. we were -- the topic was whether or not we would have a woman president in 2008. if you look at other industrial countries and even other undeveloped countries, you see that women have been heads of state. the percentage of women in the legislature has an much higher

in other countries than here. i think the reason for that is that we are such -- in a way, we are not a highly politicized country. we are a society. because of that, we haven't had a lot of women in politics until very recently. and it is a new phenomenon. i think new phenomenon's scare people. we have a lot of intelligent women out there now, both in state legislatures and congress and in the corporate world, in the military. it will be really interesting in five or 10 years. i think we will see women running for office who have military experience that is more extensive than some of the men they will be running against. i don't know if that answers your question fully. >> will you comment on the [indiscernible] >> of course. it is a funny thing. when i was writing the book, i

had to make a decision -- which first ladies should i include and which not? some include only the spouses of residents and they are considered to be first ladies. no one else's. it seems kind of interesting because rachel jackson died before he got to the white house. yet you pick up a book on first ladies and here is her biography and she never served a day in her life and then you have somebody like it if lane and and jefferson's wife had died the time -- died by the time he became president. he had other women, daughters and friends, take over the duties of first lady. in terms of the historical contribution, i think harriet

lane deserved to share credit in the diplomacy of the buchanan presidency. how many people here have gone through the experience of arranging a wedding where you have a split in the family or have had divorces or people who are unhappy with each other and you have to figure out how to make sure that uncle joe doesn't sit next to and whoever -- next to aunt whoever or there will be a fight. this was a problem that every white house event because of the tensions in the country. if you put two politicians next to each other who had come from diametrically opposite sides of the argument that they up in the congress, they might be each other with canes. and if they were going to it in that congress, they might do it in the white house. you had the problem with the seating charts of keeping rivals separated from one another so that you could have a white house event that didn't

deteriorate into bloodshed. in a way, i think she deserves a lot of credit for that time for which the country did not descend into war but tried to contain the forces that were pulling it apart while seeking some other solution. it is not a trivial a congressman. in terms of legislation, there is 90 of evidence that harriet lane sounded out legislators -- there is plenty of evidence that harriet lane sounded out legislators. that is a useful role. in politics, you often don't want to ask someone to be on your side unless you are sure that they will be on your side or unless you know that the press will be. if in passing his tax cuts in 1981, reagan had to do a deal on sugar subsidies with one senator. we knew in advance that sugar subsidies would be the price to get the tax cuts through and that was the only way it would happen. that is how politics works. it is all horsetrading. if you can have somebody find out what kind of horse do want,

how big, what color? that is too big of a horse for what you're going to give me. summit he has to do that work for the resident during the resident is the closer. -- for the president. the president is the closer. harriet lane did that. so first ladies who get actively involved in the politics and find out who the supporters are, where the problems are, who can be brought over, who is on the fence, what it takes to bring them over, that is the kind of political partnership that she was. >> how do you envision [indiscernible] [laughter]

>> if that happens, it will be an absolutely fascinating turn of events. first off, he is a two-term former president. how can you ignore that? and one shouldn't. if she were president and he were first man from a first gentleman -- i don't know what we will call him -- [laughter] the country didn't know what to call first ladies for a long time. when refers competence a book on first ladies came out in 1981, it was just just called "the ladies of the white house." for a file, they were called sometimes democratic queens. [laughter] and that often would be leveled with an insult. in the early days of the country, if you said you are

acting like a queen, you're saying that you are acting like those people we discovered it in the revolution. so for getting whatever he might be called, here you have a former president who is deeply knowledgeable about policy matters and political personalities. he has dealt with all of these people. i can't imagine that he wouldn't have an influence on policy. i can't imagine that she wouldn't consult him or you simply equate. he would be an asset. if i could sort of think of a political dream couple, it would be one in which i have a shadow president that i can use to double the level of activity that i can get done in a day. one of the worst problems you have in politics at that level in the white house or time limits. there is only so much anybody

can do in the 10-12 hour day. but you have him there and her and you can double up. and people will deal with him because he has stature in his own right as well. madame president has the power. you have the potential to be twice as effective. i was dealing with a man who wanted to become prime minister of have to stand. his one big complaint was a schedule, that he just could not get control of it because the pakistani society was such that everybody wants to deal with the top man and the top man only. so this poor guy was overwhelmed. he was absolutely overwhelmed during he was drowning. but if you have a of bill clinton and hillary clinton, you would never have that problem. so with the country tolerate it? i don't know. i can imagine that there will be some criticism. but on the other hand, it is tough to say that someone who won the presidency twice isn't entitled to have a pretty strong voice in that house.

>> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> that would be the hard part. he wouldn't want to go back. i think i probably used up all of our time. [applause] >> theou very much. second season will begin on monday. all episodes of the first season are available online. go to our website. on our facebook page, we heard which firstut ladies program was your favorite. so far, annabel adams and mary

todd lincoln are getting the most votes will stop >> coming up on c-span, the new energy secretary will talk about the nation's efforts to reduce dependency on oil. that is followed by president obama and g8 leaders on a new trade agreement. ,n the next washington journal we'll talk about the g-8 summits and turkey and syria. representative rosa delauro will talk about the farm bill being debated in the house this week. later, an examination of the supreme court decision. washington journal is live every morning at seven eastern on c-span.

the nsa director testified before the house intelligence committee. investigatingis the agency's surveillance programs. see it live on c-span three. essential to remove france from canada for the united states to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. the people led by franklin recognize the possibilities for america to become a great country. different words, the american achievement of two and a half million free people and half a million slaves, for them to get the british to a victim of friend from the borders and to have the french

help them evict the british, to manipulate the two greatest powers in the world, is amazing. flight of the eagle is part of book tv this weekend on c-span two will stop -- to. defeat.ccepted his he was not delusional. look at the logistical outcome. it was very good from a confederate perspective. atargued that the loss gettysburg didn't exceed the number of battles he would've had to of fought if he had remained in virginia. >> live all-day coverage from the gettysburg outfield on sunday, june 30.

saysw energy secretary that the administrations commitment continues to drip reduce dependency on foreign oil. this is 90 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. ok, that works. welcome, everybody, to the 2013 gia energy conference. we intend to delve deeply into critical energy issues that face us today. one housekeeping note before we get started. you will have the opportunity to ask questions of our keynote speakers. at your table, there are several

notecards. write down your questions, hold up the card and a staff member will collect them. the mic is not working? too bad. not loud enough. ok. sounds really loud appeared to me -- loud up here to me. we will follow the same practice at our panel discussions later today and tomorrow with the notecards. this morning, i have the pleasure of introducing the secretary of energy as the opening keynote speaker of the 2013 eia conference. when nominating dr. monies, president obama said he was proud to nominate a brilliant scientist who already knows his way around the department of energy. he is an expert in a range of energy subjects. he has a proven record of collaborating with the best

thinkers and innovators to advance new energy solutions. immediately before his appointment, he was professor of physics and engineering systems at the massachusetts institute of technology. he was the founding director of the mit energy initiative. before that, he was undersecretary of the department of energy and was responsible for overseeing the department of science and energy programs. his impressive resume includes serving as associate rector of science in the office of science and technology policy at the white house. two years ago, he concluded our discussion at the 2011 eia conference as the final keynotes baker. -- keynote speaker. his presentation stimulated our interest in potential technological advancements in the future of energy and ovation.

-- energy innovation. today, we are proud to have him leading the department in these new technologies. we are happy here to begin our eia conference, dr. moniz. [applause] >> thank you, adam, for the introduction. in fact, adam referred to my last go round in the department. i would note that come in that time, adam was in the private sector. we benefited from his advice and observations on how energy markets were developing and how to draw upon that advice on a more regular fashion. he also mentioned that, two years ago, with his red

assessor, richard newell, he had a chance to address this conference. he may not know that the started out to be a panel. when people thought i was on it, they'll withdrew. the panel became by de facto a keynote address. he is laughing because he knows it's true. anyway, it is a pleasure to be here. speaking of the second tour of duty, i have said this a number of times. many have questioned the judgment of one returning to the department. i then invoke the theory of samuel jackson. i come back with a lot of hope that we will in fact be able to move the ball forward on a number of important issues in the department of energy as well as other issues like security that fall under the department's responsibilities. a team i want to emphasize is

that we have a funny kind of asymmetry in how we look at the past and the future. we kind of look back and we see enormous changes that have happened in many spheres of our activity over a short time. although we rapidly forget what it is like to live in that world without some of the new technologies.0 then looking forward, we tend to project the same. and i think the theme is -- i will start it with some reminders on how things have changed, including in the energy sector, and expect in ways that we do not know how we will see far more change than we tend to anticipate, lot of it technology driven and with policies as well. if i go back to when i left government service, generate 20th, 2011 -- 2001, there are various little factoids.

today, it is not about the evening news. there is still the evening news, but it is more of a bottom-up approach with a much greater order of news, channels to reach us. my favorite happens to be "the daily beast," given its role in my confirmation. apple got mixed reviews with something called an ipod. today, i have to walk around with two iphones all the time, 24/seven. mark zuckerberg was a high school student. even i have a facebook now, an old guy. though the world has changed and if we go back to 10 years ago, oil production continue to fall, imports increasing dramatically.

top business leaders and thinkers projected an enormous natural gas shortfall. ethanol barely registered on the fuels market. we are talking about incredibly reduced costs. wind power up by 15. there really has been a tremendous change even since the four years since president obama took office, we have seen this. we know unconventional gas and oil has been a game changer in this country. we often think of the energy

industry as one of incredible inertia and very hard and resistant to change and there are some truth in that. there are some good reasons. on the other hand, we have seen a complete change, not only of the ground troop -- truth of situation with oil and gas, but a really -- a shift in attitude away from one in which we are thought of as major, having major energy dependence. this has happened at the same time that renewables have doubled in the last four years and are expected to double again by 2020 and one in which the

natural gas, the market-driven natural gas substitution for coal has been a trip -- a major contributor. these all have major implications for our economy, environment, national security. the remainder of my rocks -- my remarks, i want to make a few points in four areas i would connect energy and security. one is the continuing fact that list conventional resources in the world are located away from command centers. another, and that can be expanded to things like critical elements for a whole bunch of energy technologies.

secondly, the connection of climate change and security. third, to comment on nuclear energy and its relationship to certain national security concerns. the issue of vulnerable infrastructures and what that means in terms of our security. i will make a few comments. when it comes to oil and gas resources, we all know this has been a major change, four years of increasing production. it may not be a major milestone. crude oil imports and exports becoming equal, first time in a long time. however, this does not change

the fact that we need to reduce our oil dependence as a transportation fuel. lots of reasons for that. one is the global price of oil continues to impact gasoline prices. even though we are producing so much more oil, but in the geopolitical side, we should recognize the energy problems of many of our closest allies is in national security issue for us in the sense that their problems can limit our degrees of freedom in terms of foreign-policy policy options. we still need to adjust, we cannot take our eye off the ball. we need to address this question of oil dependence and reduce the nearest -- strategic value as a transportation fuel. president obama noted there is

no quick fix for this am a but there are three directions -- for this, but there are three directions we need to pursue in addition to supporting domestic production and lower imports. one is efficiency. we will come back to that. we have the historic agreement in terms of major increases in our standards that happens in this administration. secondly, we can talk about alternative fuels, biofuels, natural gas or natural gas derived fuels. we can talk about a new paradigm of electrification of the transportation sector. in the spirit of -- we forget how different things look today than just a few years ago.

in 2009, the american on a mobile industry was on the brink of collapse. sales have plunged 40%. the industry had lost 400,000 jobs and the president made a decision to provide support for gm and chrysler on the condition that they take steps necessary to fundamentally restructure the businesses. the department of energy played a role in supporting innovative new technologies. a $6 billion loan for ford to upgrade factories, to introduce new technologies, to raise the fuel efficiency of popular vehicles. on the other side of the equation, half a $1 billion loan

went to tesla. the industry looks totally different from what we were saying for years ago. the big three all return to profitability. manufacturing almost doubled tesla repaid the entire allen's on its loans to the department of -- the entire balance on its loans to the department of energy. they are moving to export their vehicles in 2014. think back for years, the picture is totally different, all the way from our traditional vehicles to laying the foundation for a surprising future relative to today's expectations on what the electric vehicle future will

look like. it is a very important change and we need to keep that in mind as we think of the future as being a simple extrapolation of the present. i should add that with tesla, that is a pretty high performance vehicle. consumer reports called the model s the best car we have ever tested. not the best electric vehicle, the best car they ever tested. last week, the department -- looked at the fuel costs for electric vehicles. gasoline prices we see at the

corner station, but we do not see the electric fuel costs. the national average is about $1.14 a gallon equivalent. quite a bit of state-by-state variation, but much more stability in those prices. obviously, operating fuel cost does not hide the fact that there is a large capital cost difference currently. even there, if you take tesla and public information, we have a halfing of the base cost. things like getting battery costs down, some of the technology directions we are supporting our critical because there are lots of attractions in

that model, -- traction's in that model, but a ways to in terms of scaling because of lower initial costs. we could go on and talk about other fuel replacements. things like biofuel costs will come down slowly than once anticipated. do not take our eye off the ball, they are coming down and are approaching interesting areas. natural gas as a vehicle fuel, we are clearly using that much less than other countries, but the steps forward look interesting. class eight vehicles, station to station infrastructure, may very well have some legs. on the natural gas side, we still do not know the extent to

which similar developments will occur in other parts of the world. if and when they do, that will have a profound effect on our security issues, even if we remain the largest producer in the world because it can change flows dramatically in our hemisphere, europe, and the far east. there is a major issue around our own lng exports. as i said in my first few weeks at the department, i have had a pretty thorough review of the processes and we are getting to the point of getting to the

specific evaluations, which i plan to do as expeditiously as i can. turning to climate change, as many of you know, the last years, and military and former military leaders, the intelligence community, have all emphasized the implications of climate change for our security, particularly its role as a potential threat multiplier in certain parts of the world, unstable parts of the world. in addition to military leaders, religious leaders have also come forward. i personally signed a letter with the scientists, priests, rabbis, ministers, some years back in which the theme was fundamentally while there may or may not be disagreement on how

we got there, there is agreement on what we need to do going forward in terms of taking care of our planet. in my view, the underlying science is really not debatable in terms of the driver of the need to adjust climate change. there is clearly lots of room to debate how we do it, what we do, how fast we do it, but not the underlying science. the president has made it clear that we will have a strong push as best we can to address climate change, energy efficiency is one of the major approaches. we need to move towards lower carbon and zero carbon fuels and we also need to emphasize rings like sequestration -- things like sequestration as an approach for the expected continued use of: this country the use of coal in this country and the world.

i will not go through a lot of discussion about zero carbon fuels. i will mention silver. costs have dropped dramatically. -- i will mention solar. costs have dropped dramatically. i will argue that i believe the scale and timeframe of impact of solar technology, i believe it is underestimated. there are many situations today when solar is competitive. clearly, there is more to do. we are aggressively pursuing this all the way from basic research to deployment.

i think that is an example of something we will look back on in 10 years and be surprised at the scope of the change. nuclear energy has security implications in terms of some of our nonproliferation efforts. i will defer to tom, but i think what is going on in georgia and south carolina with new nuclear plant construction is absolutely

critical for the future of nuclear power in this country on cost and on schedule construction is one of the most important factors, probably the most in fact her -- important factor am a for the future of nuclear power. for plans of been announced for closure in the united states -- four plants have been announced for closure in the united states. we remain a department interested in pursuing small modular reactors as a technology option for the future. we do not know -- we are helping to move some new technologies and expect to have the first land in operation by 2022. this could change a lot of the dynamics around how nuclear power is deployed. finally, i would mention the blue-ribbon commissions work in terms of management of nuclear waste. as many of you know, the blue- ribbon commission recommended a different approach, one based upon consent, deciding on

nuclear disposal facilities. emphasizing strong dual tracks of storage and disposal with a pilot storage plant to come on in less than a decade. third, a new organization to manage nuclear waste and spent fuel in integrated fashion. such an organization have sufficient authorities and access to the funds to be successful. the administration has endorsed those principles. there is draft legislation being developed in congress right now supporting those principles and i am hopeful we will be able to move forward in that way, which i believe is the most promising approach to starting to move fuel away from reactors.

the blue-ribbon commission, the administration, and the congress or emphasizing we would like to see starting to move fuel from shutdown reactors and all of these changes will require statutory action, so we await the actions of the congress. the fourth area, i think my time is about up, infrastructure. the whole issue of a dressing energy infrastructure is clearly a security issue as well as an economic issue and an enabler for changes in the energy system. integrating renewables with gas and other sources. i will say a couple of things. it may not be well-known, the department of energy does have a

specific responsibility as the lead agency in terms of emergency emergency response working with dhs and other organizations in terms of major disruptions. hurricane sandy, of course, was such a case. the department was heavily involved, but we all learned a lot in that episode. we all learned how we need to be better prepared to respond. i think we also learned the incredible interdependencies of our infrastructures. electricity, natural gas, information, fuels. a major problem was fuels. it was tremendously complicated by the failure of other infrastructures like electricity.

there were institutional issues, how do we put in place the appropriate waivers to allow private companies to participate collaboratively? the president is very much focused on this, including principles meeting quite recently. the collaboration is really excellent and we are trying to work together to figure out the system of preparedness so that when we have further disasters, we can be much more efficient and effective in going after them. at the same time, taking very hard -- thinking very hard about how we get more robustness and resilience into our infrastructure, satisfying

economic, environmental, and security needs. the last comment i will make, infrastructure is a good pivot because it will be a major part of what we are calling the energy review. many of you may know the recommendation made by the president's council of advisors in science and tech knowledge he in late 2010 to try to forge a new approach to how we put together an integrated energy policy. i will not go into the arguments about whether or not we have one or not. this clearly -- there is clearly more we can do in terms of bringing to the table all the equities energy that so many points of our administration have and so many committees in

congress have. we label energy, but the reality is, there are strong equities across the administration. the key concept is that we need to combine the convening power of the white house to bring the multiple agencies to the table at high levels. we need to utilize the policy and analytical strength of the department of energy to underlie the process as an executive secretary while bringing about bringing all of the agencies together. a first installment was done two years ago. that, in fact, going back to our earlier discussion, called for an increased emphasis on the trans-. -- transportation technologies that we discussed earlier. that was a baby step in the sense of in involved one

department. now we need to go on to the policy world bring together all of these threads. the president endorses this approach. for the department of energy, it means building up our analytical capacity. those are the main point i wanted to make. one of my high-level views is we should look back a little bit to inform ourselves how different it is likely to look in 10 more years. technology driving a lot of it, cost production of alternative technologies, but also synergistic policies of the type we like to develop.

thank you. [applause] >> ok, thank you very much. i have 24 questions, 25. >> synthesize. >> the secretary only has time for a couple of questions. that will not be as hard as it sounds. there is one question on the loan program. the remaining 20 questions are all about lng exports. [laughter] let me go to the first question. could it improve the management

and transparency of the doe loan program to spin it out as its own entity? are there some examples of successful, federal sponsored energy r&d that you have seen? >> i can think of one. >> successful r&d and the loan program itself. >> there are many examples of -- i would point to a national academy study about 10 years ago

that looked only at the energy efficiency sector that found a large multiplier in terms of federally sponsored r&d. to give a couple of specific examples, two different spheres, i would go back to the beginnings of the unconventional gas revolution. not only federal, but the interplay of federal, public- private, and well-timed finite tax credits came together to really help spur this natural gas revolution. i could go into more detail, but that has been well chronicled.

in the report i mentioned earlier, that is going back to something that underpins our current fossil abundance, natural gas abundance. more recently, in many ways, the department r&d supported the advance of solar. in technology, i could go back to the work with industry to lay the foundation. i can skip forward and pivot to loans with a loan guarantee that is supported by -- supported the largest solar plant that passed a milestone in california desert. that takes us to loans. i have not thought in terms of spinning that out. one of the major programs is in a stewardship mode at this time. other loan programs do still have authorities, but they need to be thought through in terms of new policy directions that

might use those authorities. in my own review and that of others, frankly, i think the doe has built up a very professional organization that is getting very good marks in terms of its due diligence and it's structuring of the loan programs. in terms of metrics of failure, which people like to focus on, i would note that even projecting forward the current loan portfolio across all three programs, projecting forward, we do not see exceeding 10% of the congressionally mandated loan loss reserve. this looks like a pretty healthy portfolio. i believe there are a number of success stories and tesla is one

of them. >> for the remaining 19 questions, when will doe act on the next lng export application? >> expeditiously. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> i need to learn to do that. alright, i want to welcome you all once again and thank you very much to the secretary. before i introduce our next speaker, i want to take a few minutes to discuss some events at eia. i would like to provide a warm welcome to four former eia administrators who have joined us today. could you guys all stand up, please?

[applause] when i said i really wanted to give them a warm welcome, i want to scold them a little. none of them told me how hard this job was going to be. ok. i have been here a year now and i want to report that even in the midst of sequestration and budget cuts, eia is not disappearing. we are actively bringing back some of the work products that we had to drop in 2011, including the oil and gas reserves report and the international energy outlook. after i arrived at eia last june, i announced several priorities. we have had some progress since then. i said we needed to transform our data operations.

for a statistical agency, this goes to the core of what we do. we have 70 major surveys at the heart of our mission that curly currently rely on a myriad of legacy. do you remember lotus 1-2-3? if that computer ever dies, we are in trouble. we need to fix that. modernizing and simplifying these processes and systems is essential to the mission. i am happy to say we are very near completion of a pilot project and the review that should allow us to decide how to move forward in updating our reports systems. it will make it easier on our respondents. we will be able to do a lot of things on the web and it will

make it easier for our employees. a lot of stuff has to be entered by hand and checked by hand and we can do a lot of that electronically now. we recently created a new state of the art data center. it will reduce the rent we pay to the secretary of a million dollars over the next four years.

good morning, c-span!

>> this needs to be fixed.

the second imperative for me became as i began to hear the rhetoric regarding this issue, an important issue, but as a christian, i knew that it was god's kindness that brought me to repent. i also knew that when jesus had to travel to galilee and go through samaria, he did not do what other jews are said to of done, which is to walk around samaria, but instead he walked through and through -- through and to us amerian woman. a woman he did not judge by her citizenship, but instead he judged her as a daughter, and he made her perhaps the most powerful evangelist of her time. now you're about to meet other panelists, who feel passionately about this issue, an issue that needs some discussion. you'll hear from them. and we want to time for conversation. we are hopeful you will join this conversation. i heard there was something in the magnitude of 40-60

amendments to the bill that is now being considered by congress. let's have a mind -- a moment prayer and silence alone for that. this is not an issue of small magnitude. please, would you help me welcome our panelists? here they come. let's welcome them. [applause] i'm going to bring to the podium representative steve montenegrin. he will serve as chairman of the house of reform in the arizona state legislature. .et's welcome steve montenegrin [applause] >> hello everyone. it is truly an honor for me to be here. select anf such a honorable group of people. thank you for having us.

i have to tell you that i really enjoyed the panel that we just had on the issue of life. i worked with congressman trent franks. i get it. can tell you that in arizona, we were tremendously on the issue of life. i was the sponsor of a bill that did away with sex selection abortions and race selection abortions in arizona. there are different states that do just one component. the first state that did both of those come out -- those, we are. we are getting sued by the aclu. i think that is a badge of honor. [applause] just to tell you about myself and getting to the issue of immigration, first of all, some people asked me what a mind -- what i'm doing in politics print i would like to tell them i fell and i hit my head, but that is not the truth. i was recruited to run for office in 2007 for the state

house of representatives. i will tell you that never did i expect that in arizona we would be dealing with some of the things the way that the media nationally has dealt with them, but i have to tell you that we have been at the forefront of many issues driven people look to arizona, especially on issues like immigration. i probably sponsored senate bill 1070. i voted for it. i became the go to guy. trying to explain what the bill truly did. i know that the media tries to make things into a circus as it is about the ratings, but the fact of the matter is is that we have to be truthful with people on and we laws we have to enforce. i did receive death threats and all kinds of e-mails. sometimes you have to stand up and do what is right. [applause] thank you. one of the things i like to tell people is that there is a diversity in god, what you go into any community, whether it

is the hispanic community or any community, i will tell you that i like to tell people, as i did when i first started, that the fact i can speak in spanish and that i immigrant with my family legally, -- in the grated with my family legally, it doesn't make me a tax-and-spend liberal hopelessly addicted to big government. [applause] getting into the issue of immigration, one of the things i like to highlight and bring to the forefront is the value of american citizenship read this is something -- citizenship. i am a minister. our family immigrated from else all the door. we were fleeing from that civil war, that horrible civil war that left more than 75,000 people dead in the early mid 1880s. i will tell you that my family immigrated legally. and deep tremendous respect for american

citizenship. my father has always taught me the importance and value that this country has, the , the biblical principles, and the foundation that gives the value to an individual, personal freedoms but also personal responsibility. those rights that are inalienable, given to us not by government or by our neighbor, but by our god, our creator. when i like to approach the even of immigration or citizenship, it is something of great value. citizenship is not something -- it is not just a certificate that you can hand it to somebody -- it is not the certificate that you learn -- american citizenship is a responsibility. it comes with high responsibility, things we have to as americans understand, a way of life that we hold, it is not something given to us. to much blood has been shed, people have given their lives so that you and i can sit here today and discussed the

different issues and the freedom and liberty that we do without fear of persecution. that is something that my family has told me about, and we see that happens in different parts of the world. understanding the value of the individual and understanding american citizenship is something we need to fully comprehend the responsibility that we have. i do not think that when we talk about immigration, not everybody that comes to this country wants to be a citizen. there are people that come here to work. for us to even think of a program or a system that forces immigration on somebody is not something we should be looking at. i would also like to say -- i do not want to take too much time, because i want to allow the other panelists to speak and get into questions -- i would like to say that i believe we have to be very careful because the subject that is brought forward is that we want to

reach out to the hispanic community. that we want to reach out with that issue of compassion and we want to reach out to the hispanic community. i agree that we need to have that dialogue. but we have to be careful not to be pandering. the truth of the matter is if you look at whole after poll, ,ven the left with its polls 2010, the pew poll hispanic center did a poll in the middle of october 2 thousand 10, in the heat of senate bill 1070, and immigration came in fifth among hispanics in this country, the fifth most important. fiverhaps one out of latinos in this country viewed immigration is the most important issue. it wasn't that you wanted comprehensive immigration reform necessarily, but it was that you wanted to do something about it or it was an issue at the top. that is one out of five if you look at 2012.

it was onea poll -- out of four. five.use me, one out of if you look at polling for every latino in the country, it was 25%. four.s one out of 20 five percent c immigration is the most important subject. that is just in general. c immigration as the most important subject. that is just in general. the media is trying to create that immigration is the top issue or the entire hispanic community. it is simply not true. we have to be careful because as conservatives or even as a party, if we are seen to be pandering or trying to be a party that panders, there is a part -- a party that it is already to do that. there is a party that is already pandering. that is the democratic already. we have values and standards. the best way to deal with people whether they are hispanic or black or asian or of any country is to tell them the

truth. it is the truth with boldness. ands talk with love compassion. let's talk with each other and explain what the issues are. i'm not saying that we are a party or a country of compassion. i'm not going to sit here and be lectured by a party of democrats that tells us to be compassionate when they sat by and let 50 million babies be aborted. [applause] on the issue of compassion, i'm not going to accept the premise of them lecturing us on that. the fact that we honor immigration laws, that we respect immigration laws, and the enforcement of immigration laws, to me, as an immigrant, to my family, tells me we are honoring immigration in this country. i like to share that with you. that is the way i believe that we have to be able to talk to people, we have to be able to connect with them. sometimes we do not need to change our message.

we just need to change our approach. sometimes we have different manners of doing that, but i believe we are getting better. the issue of border security i think is something that is very important. we are dealing with the bill right now that is going to congress. i think at this moment it is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. if i were to ask everybody in this place, by a show of hands, how many believe that this bill that is going through congress right now will actually secure the border? raise your hand. that is why it is not going to work. [applause] -- as it is written -- people want to know that they can trust the government, and we can build that trust driven many people in this room would be willing to work with almost everything in that bill -- trust. how many people in this room

would be willing to work with apple -- with everything in that bill if we were securing the border and we would not have to deal with this again? raise your hand. what people are asking for is to make sure that we secure that quarter. i live in arizona. i work in arizona. i see this firsthand. we have problems with cartels at our border. he have problems with trafficking, not only with drugs and weapons and humans and children, but we are seeing the substance of this. we see all kinds of flow through that order. -- border. border security is something that people are asking for for the security of not only our families and our country, but our future as well. i think that is something that we seriously need to address. i want to make sure that we answer some questions as we are here as well. thank you for having me. it is an honor. we want to share our thoughts. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, steve.

is colleen podium holcombe. she is the executive director of the eagle forum. after graduating from wellesley college, colleen went on to graduate with a jd from none other than regent university, and of course, she received a master's degree at regent at 12 -- as well. when she was at regent and law school, she received the national association of women's lawyers outstanding graduate award. these look into the college ash to the podium, colleen -- please welcome to the podium, colleen holcombe. >> i want to thank all of you for being here. eagle forum is a grassroots organization, and for people of faith to be involved in the political process, motivated by our faith, this is why our country is great. is why it is going to stay great. i want to thank you for being here.

i am going to talk about the current gang of eight bill that is going through the senate. i wish i had time to get into the specifics, the overwhelming cost, the ineffective national security or multiple national security failures, and the many injustices inherent in the bill. he have set up a website at w www.stopgangofeight.com. that will give you specific information about what is in this bill. most of your senators do not know because it is over 1000 pages and they have not had time to read it yet. this bill is a classic example of the washington way of doing things. there's a a problem, and both parties come together, and in many cases, want to make a good- faith effort to solve the problem, but the solutions to the problem get lost in the need to pay back their political allies and to pay back well- funded corporate and liberal

interests and desire to win over a large voting block. all of this comes together, and every group what the -- gets what they want. name.ll gets a wonderful then the government gets vast new powers. it happened with obamacare. now it is happening with immigration. as a person of faith, i get profoundly offended when faith leaders, in particular, implied that there is some kind of biblical mandate to pass a bill like this. scripture is clear on many things. we are talking about many of them today. when life begins, what the definition of marriage is, behavior of government should and should not tolerate, but in sovereign nations, immigration policy is simply not one of them. there is no biblical mandate for mass amnesty for a dash for illegal aliens. the scripture i hear most -- mass amnesty for illegal aliens.

the scripture i hear most is in leviticus. -- that weld treat would treat the sojourner and stranger from me. that is a mandate for us, not for government. we also have to read that mandate in the context of the chapter before it, leviticus 18, that said both the native born and the foreigner must obey the laws of the land. that is incredibly important. going back to the mandate for compassion, when a government tries to implement compassion, it can only do so on a political basis which will always end up in injustice. in this case, it is an amnesty bill with a $6.3 trillion price tag. that is just the amnesty section. not the many new programs that this bill puts into effect. bill will, this flood the labor market, where last week's jobs numbers indicated 11.8 million americans

are out of work. this bill will flood the labor market with 11 million people who are in the country illegally, who will not only be competing for those jobs and suppressing wages, although initially they will not be eligible for federal benefits, they will be eligible for untold state and local benefits, which will have a terrible impact on state and local economies. going back to when the government tries to implement -- it will always be done on a political basis. i will try to speed up. i want to leave time for discussion and other panelists. i want to give you an example of how this happens -- i heard this great example -- think about a mother who steals to feed her children, she goes to jail, and her children end up in foster care. it is a terrible situation, but where is the outcry for amnesty for such a person? where is the outcry for failure for reunification for somebody who has written a lot? it is not there. why? she's not a member of a direct -- a desire as political bloc

that we have people in washington trying to garner favor for. leviticus 19 where we get the mandate for compassion, if you go to the ist leviticus 19:34, it after the mandate that we exercise kindness to strangers, it also prohibits unjust waste and measures. that is what this bill is. ands an unjust waste measure. i could go on. this bill also -- another commandment we are given in leviticus 19 is not to oppress the foreigner, which the still absolutely does by keeping them as a very hard-working underclass i failing to properly ensure that they learn english, the language that will give them the opportunity to succeed in american society, and that they assimilate properly into american society today are not vulnerable to exploitation. that is at the low skill level. at the high school level, is bill dramatically increases the number of h-1b visas.

that is to bring over high skilled labor. this is incredibly frustrating -- specific companies. carveouts in the bill to allow them to have an increased number of these visas and to avoid the requirements that they make a good-faith effort to find americans who could fill those jobs and to avoid the requirement that they pay the foreigner's the same amount they would pay american citizens. that allows direct oppression. a professor at the university of california at davis, he is a liberal professor, but he has written extensively about the abuses for these people who come over on h-1b visas. often these are people treated by -- treated like indentured servants. employers are responsible to keep them in the country, so what incentive do they have to ask for a raise? or to report behavior that is not acceptable? those are some of the injustices inherent in the bill.

i'm going to yield the stage. i'm getting the flashing light. keep doing what you are doing. [applause] >> thank you, colleen. next the podium is carlos carvalho. he is a leading conservative voice. he founded capital gains. he works for education reform. please welcome carlos. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is such a privilege to be here with people that i shared one of the most special things in common with. that is a common faith. verylleagues left me little time, so i will tell you about myself for one minute, and then maybe talk about immigration for two minutes. then we will take questions from you so we can have a dialogue. i decided to run for school board in miami-dade county in 2010. our first daughter was born, and i figured i had something to contribute. we have done great things. let me give you an idea.

i heard congressman sanford talk about spending earlier. five years ago, our budget in miami-dade county public schools was $6 billion. we had 11 f schools. we spent a ton on administration and bureaucracy. today our budget is $4 billion. we have zero f schools. we have cut bureaucracy by 58%. that tells you something about spending. [applause] don'tshis is due's and on immigration, i will give you some of my thoughts. do realize that the status quo is unacceptable. what senator rubio says is true. what we have now is de facto amnesty. .e do need to make a change in our school system, we spend over $20 million a year as a direct result of the broken immigration system. we have to do something, and republicans, conservatives have to be a part of the solution.

i remember in the 1990s when i first started following politics, our party, we were popular, we were like because we were the party of solutions. it would always say, democrats all they do is manage problems. we know how to solve them. we need to come together and solve this problem. don't pander't -- to hispanics. i speak spanish. we speak spanish to our daughters at home because we want them to learn another language. they are learning english at school. they're better at english already, even though we never spoke english to them at home, but do not pander to the hispanic community. i thought you -- it was deplorable that senator cain decided to deliver an entire speech on the senate floor last week in spanish. english is the language that unites this country. we need to send a message to every immigrant that they must learn english. [applause] it is not just because we want them to, it is because it will help them become independent and

successful members of society. speaks a do -- compassionately. i know we are frustrated that people broke the law to come to our country. the poll need to pay a price for breaking the law because we believe -- people need to pay a price for breaking locks because we believe in the rule of law. remember that most of the people that came, and still try to come, do so because they want a better life for their families. we need to be sensitive to that. yes, there are consequences for breaking the law. we do need to find a realistic million for the 11-12 people in our country right now. please, let's try to come together. i understand that this legislation is not perfect. let's fix it. let's make it better. i think we can all agree that the status quo is totally unacceptable. thank you. i look forward to listening to your comments and questions.

[applause] >> thank you, carlos. we are coming up to a break. we have time for q&a. i know this is an issue that many of you find near and dear. let's take a question or two before we conclude. -- do icy hands -- i see hands? >> i have been interested in some time -- [indiscernible] i want your feelings on the fact that israel old testament was a theocracy, the church and state were one and the same, and the new testament references the -- references to government are very narrow.

god institutes government as a punisher of evildoers. doesn't go much further than that. all of the biblical references in the old testament apply to a theocratic situation. do you feel there is a big difference there between that and our situation today generally in biblical application? >> the question was, to we feel there is a difference between the theocracy of israel and the current governmental form in america in relationship to this issue? does that sound like a fair representation of your question? >> we might want to refer to the reverend. >> it is a very sensitive subject because, you are right, the bible talks about the sojourner and how we have to look out for them. but it also defines the foreigner could it also talks about the foreigner. i do not believe the bible directly talks about immigration and how government

should establish its policies for immigration grade -- immigration. i do not see that the bible directly outlines how a shouldent here on earth run or establish its immigration laws. i do see that it does give the government the authority to set its immigration laws as the sovereignty that the state has, but i think we do have to be careful because it has been mentioned that we have to be compassionate. we have to understand as well that one-size-fits-all policy is not what everybody is looking for. there are people coming here to work. for us to ignore that and try to make it a blanket policy to give everybody citizenship is not something that is outlined in the scriptures either. quickly, as you mentioned, we do not have a theocracy, but what we do have is a

representative republic that ensures personal freedom. from our perspective, america is based on judeo-christian principles. my concern is, what is our responsibility? from our perspective, the best thing the government can do is keep a safe and keep us free, and it is up to us to carry out the biblical mandates. >> i appreciate those comments. carlos? >> as we think about this issue and the people it impacts, which includes all of us, we have to remember congressman sanford's words about the god of second chances. yes, work through this, on the one hand, people have to pay a price, there have to be consequences for the sins and mistakes and laws that were broken in the past, but we also ought to give people a chance to thrive in our society and become independent people that are not a public burden on our country. >> let me ask quickly, i think

we all agree this is one of the many issues one can find plenty of people that are ready to stand in the pulpit and elsewhere and give you what they think is a very strong biblical foundation for either side of this argument. right? we for the mall. let me go on to say -- i'm certainly the oldest person on the panel -- i remember the days in the 1970s and 1980s when not only did we not enforce our laws, we were letting folks in and looking the other way. i know that we encourage people to come across the border because we needed a labor force. my perspective, one of the things we want to continue to remind folks in the conversation is that there is a level of culpability. on the part of a government that not only did not enforce its laws, but truly in implementation and practice, it was a reversal in terms of what the law said. we encourage these workers to come as though somebody had been driving 72 in a 55 for 10 years. we never pulled them over.

aw, we realize we have serious issue. we will send you all a bill. we have noticed for the last 17 years, we haven't been pulling you over, but you still have been breaking the law. the full force of the law will be brought to you. i do not not think any person, christian, pagan, secular, religious come every person understands that is unfair. there is a fairness to the issue which must say there isn't one single cultural party. we have an issue and a problem. thinking, caring, christian, non-christian americans can resolve this in a fashion that is better than the current system. we have time for one more question. >> what do you think of these commercials that we have seen on ,elevision in which some group probably by big business that wants to profit from cheap labor, one group is advertising on television saying that the gang of eight bill is a

conservative solution -- i think that is an outrageous lie. what do you think that? >> what about this commercial we see about the gang of eight being a conservative bill? one person thinks it's an outrage -- an outrageous lie. >> it's an outrageous lie. you are exactly right. it is paid for by corporate interests, mark zuckerberg, the founder of facebook, the 23- year-old, 26 are a billionaire who want cheap later. -- cheap labor. that is exactly right. to add to the point about de facto amnesty, it is true that the situation we have now is the. what the current bill would do is to codify what is now de facto amnesty and to give power -- it is déjàry vu with obamacare -- of homeland notrity whose policy is to enforce immigration law and to legalize as many people as

possible. you're right. , on the last point, there is a major difference between this legislation and the 1986 legislation. if you want to -- want a stop sign and i forgive you, that is amnesty. if you pay a fee, that is not amnesty. i think it is important to distinguish that this is not what happened in 1986. >> one of the things we can all agree on is that this is an issue that needs reformation, and none of us are going to be convinced by a we see on television. they give for being here. thank you to our panel. -- thank you for being here. thank you to our panel. >> today a confirmation hearing for thomas wheeler, president obama's choice to lead the fcc. that is live starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span three. tuesday, massachusetts holds a special election to fill the senate seat vacated when

john kerry became secretary of state. today the debate between the candidates to replace him. democratic congressman ed markey and the republican challenger israel gomez. live coverage at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> it was the central to remove france from canada for the united states as it became to have the opportunity to achieve its independence. a few people, led by franklin, recognize the possibilities for america to become a great country. let me put it in different words from what i said a moment ago -- the american achievement, people of 2.5 million free people, and half a million slaves, or them -- for them to get the british -- the british to evict the french from their borders and for the french to

help them evict the british, to manipulate the two greatest powers in the world was an astonished -- an astonishing achievement. >> conrad black on the emergence of the united states as a power saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern am a part of book tv on c-span2. -- eastern, part of book tv and c-span2. allows phone unlocking a consumer to use the same phone with a different carrier. the sec commissioner said unlocking a cell phone is not equivalent to piracy. his remarks were part of a discussion on the issue at tech freedom and washington, d.c.. this is 90 minutes.

>> thank you all for coming. i'm president of tech freedom. this is a day of firsts for us. it is the first event we had in our new space. i have walked this building for years and really had no idea what it was. it is an architectural treasure. ~ 1923, it was preserved in all its historic forms. , it was in 1923 preserved and all of its historic forms. we are the first technology policy think tank based here at the methodist church. you're looking forward to talking about technology with other organizations that are trying to change the world in their own way. this is also the first time we've had c-span covered our events. we are delighted to have them here. it is our first time with our commissioner, who i will introduce in a moment. it is the first time in the new format. we handed these out at the

entrance. this is our attempt to adapt our motto, which is richard -- simple rules for a complex world. the tech briefing is really our attempt to do simple bullets for complex issues. we are going to do those on a number of issues in the future. this one attempts to cut to the heart of what unlocking is about. hashtag is #unlocking. with compliments to our friends, this event space has the single best wi-fi of any events you trace i have ever been in in d.c.. know that because i ran speed test. -- i know that because i ran speed tests. if anybody tells you the wi-fi is inadequate, i think the methodists are leading the way. i will just mention that we have another event coming up in july. either on july 8 or july 11.

stay tuned. on the past, present, and future of the children online protection act. stay tuned. without further ado, i will introduce commissioner hidepi. he is my favorite commissioner on the sec now. in general, a great commissioner. thisrticular, i like commissioner because he has realized that the job of the sec to cover telecom policy, but areas like this one that intersect with telecom policy. what you will hear today is that this is one example of where the government in some areas can actually reduce competition in markets that in other areas people complain about not being competitive enough. my hats off to the commissioner for realizing that cell phone unlocking is one of what -- one of those ways we can empower consumers to choose for themselves what might be better.

ask you to turn off your cell phones. join us on the unlocking hashtag. i will turn it over to the commissioner. thank you for that kind introduction. it was interspersed with all sorts of undue praise. i appreciate the invitation. i look forward to participating in this conversation this afternoon. it is unusual in washington to discuss an issue where republicans come at democrats, and independents and find common ground -- can find common ground. president obama, senators, and the american public a reaching a consensus on a pretty simple proposition. that proposition is that consumers should be allowed to unlock their cell phones and switch wireless carriers without being labeled scofflaws. to the proverbial man on the

street, it is absurd we are discussing this. how did we get to the point where a consumer could be criminally prosecuted for unlocking a cell phone? there are two aspects to the answer. one involves technology, and the other the law. first things first -- most wireless carriers lock the phones they sell. they will only work on that carrier's network. if you purchase an iphone from one carrier and want to switch to another carrier, at the end of your two-year contract, you cannot do that unless you unlock your cell phone. unlocking requires you to access certain programming punchingphone, say by a specific sequence of numbers on the keypad, and order to allow the phone to function on another let work -- network. for those of you with refined taste, i should note it is not like that he -- like the scene in "wargames."

that is something completely different. next, enter the law. specifically the digital millennium copyright act could -- act. it was designed to prevent digital piracy. such as when someone distributes on the internet a song. , the bill prohibits consumers from deactivating the drm software or other protections designed to prevent access to a judge -- to a digital work. the dmcayears ago, swept up cell phone unlocking through a technicality. locking of a cell phone prevent access to software and the phone, such as a mobile operating system, when it is

used on a new carrier's network. you unlock a cell phone, and technically you're circumventing a technological wordse -- to use the bill -- even though nobody thinks that is the cook went of policy -- that is the equivalent of policy. the library of congress down the road, there is the u.s. copyright office, and it can grant three-year exemptions. the library and did just that in 2006. again in 2009. consumers could unlock their phones without fear of prosecution. the third time was not the charm. last october, the library declined to extend the exemption for cell phone unlocking. as a result, a consumer who unlocks his mobile device now can face civil and criminal penalties under copyright law, even if the contract for this carrier has been fulfilled.

to me, this is a classic case of the government solving a problem that simply does not exist. the free market was working just fine in this space before the librarian's decision. a bipartisan fec report issued earlier this year found that prices in the wireless marketplace were down and that investments have gone up. similarly, more manufacturers develop it -- developing innovative mobile devices, and consumers are reaping the benefits. wireless terriers certainly do not -- carriers certainly do not need the government's help. they already have contract law rights, such as an early termination fee, to ensure customers live up to the terms of those contracts. so adding heavy-handed copyright penalties, including hefty criminal fines, simply marries the sledgehammer to the fly. my position is pretty simple --

the relationship between wireless carriers and the customer should be governed by contract law, not copyright law, and certainly not criminal law. while there is broad support for overturning a librarian's decision, there is also an ongoing debate over the best way to accomplish this objective. i have been thinking about this issue for some time now. here is where i stand -- first, i do not think that we should kick the can down the road. we should fix this problem permanently. we do not need to have the exact same debate three years from now, and three years after that, like an extended version of the movie "groundhog day." i can insure you that the case of criminalizing cell phone unlocking is not getting stronger over time. second, we do not need to give the fcc any additional authority. i recognize that it is not the norm for an sec commissioner to ask congress not to add to its power.

not create this mess. we are not in a position to clean it up. the problem is one of copyright law. congress should fix that problem directly. not interfereld with the freedom of contract. consumers today and choose from a wide variety of providers, plans, and phones. we should not restrict carrier'' ability to offer cheaper and better options. fourth, we should also protect those who help consumers unlock their phone. unlocking can be as simple as you dialing a code on your phone, but it is often more obligated than that. i know that i certainly cannot pull my phone out of the pocket and unlock the phone right now. i think others are in the same boat. helping consumers exercise their right to unlock their phones should not be a crime. fifth, this debate was inspired by cell phone unlocking, but the

bill actually cuts a wider swath. the anti-circumvention provisions in the law apply to pda's, intablets, virtually any mobile device. consumers should not be put in the position of migrating some electronics but not others from one wireless carrier to the next. let's make sure that all wireless communication devices are included in the fix. let's keepinally, our focus on the narrow issue at hand. i know that many people, maybe some in this room, favor broader reform of the copyright laws. i know that many other people oppose broader reform. that isthat is a debate left for another day. right now, there is wide support for removing cell phone unlocking from copyright law. let's push that proposal across the finish line. my fear is if it becomes

entangled in more controversial issues, that proposal might get stuck in the starting blocks. unfortunately doing all six of these things is not complicated. in fact, congress could accomplish them right now with the one-page bill simply by amending the definition of circumvention in the dmca. that amendment would simply clarify that the definition of circumvention excludes circumvention initiated by or on behalf of an owner of a wireless communications device solely to connect that device to a wireless communications network. would restore the common sense, market-based approach that rule the day -- ruled the day until last october surprise. these are my brief two cents. i look forward to hearing from our panelists. ,orking together more generally i'm hopeful we can and unnecessary government intervention and wireless marketplaces -- in the wireless

workplace. thanks again for having adrian -- for having me. [applause] >> thank you for coming. can everybody hear me? -- panel includes [inaudible] be together for many events in the future. to his right is chris lewis, director of public relations -- government relations at public knowledge, which we have worked with a number of times. we do not agree with everything, this is a rare issue where people of all stripes can certainly agree that we should get government out of the way to encourage competition. sitting to his right is a jerry griego from the mercator center. jerry is also an expert in tech policy and slightly more academic than we are over here on capitol hill.

finally, larry spivak is the president of the phoenix center. he has been covering tech and telecom policy for many years and is here to push back in a healthy way against the consensus. let me start with larry. you have been a bit of a naysayer. what is the deal? [laughter] thank you for inviting me to participate. it was very kind of you. i have been dealing with handset unlocking since 2007 when this first raised its head with the notion of wireless cards. forink as i was preparing the debate today, there are really three discrete questions that we need to discuss -- i think they need to be parsed out. the first discussion is -- that is not my phone -- the first question is, is the generic

concent that concept of handset unlocking good or bad i think a lot of people get that confused with everything else. let's assume we have a contract regime. if i give you a phone that i could buy and unlock for $650, and i get it for $200 at a subsidized rate, i do not think it is unreasonable for me not to be able to unlock the phone for two years so that i do not run off and sell it on the third market. if i want to buy an unlocked phone, i can do so at full price. they are available. any carrier will do it. it is not a big deal. we have looked at the economics ,f this, and it turns out because of the complementarity of the- the complements phone and handset, if you eliminate the ability to subsidize the price of wireless service, the price of the handset will go up. a quick think about operability.

one we talk about taking phone to another, it will not work on verizon or sprint network. point number two, now we have the copyright decision. if you read the decision, which was done in a dispassionate rulemaking, what the registrar found was that given all of the amazing choices available for consumers for handsets, we do not need a non-circumvention. it raises the third issue, which is, do we want to have copyright as an added enforcement against john breaking? -- jailbreaking? i we worried about men swooping down on grandma because she jailbreaoke her phone? that is a reasonable discussion. we need to put those in different categories to discuss it more accurately. >> i want to call attention to

our tech briefing where we try to break down in simple bullets the difference between unlocking and jail breaking. you will hear those terms thrown around -- thrown around a lot today. they are fundamentally, technologically similar. they have to do with different purposes. we are talking about unlocking your phone so you can use it on another carrier's network. to clarify, that is something that your carrier can do for you by setting the code to the phone, but it is also something you can do by replacing the boot loader or the operating system on your phone. ryan, how do users want to larry? can you give us background on the issue -- how do you respond to larry? can you give us some back rent on the issue? >> this goes back to the 2006 decision by the library of congress. in consultation with the copyright office. to exempt the unlocking of cell phones to switch carriers, which

was renewed in 2010. however, any phone purchased after january 26, 2013 and not lawfully be unlocked because of the late 2012 decision. that is by way of background. the findings of the library and were that -- library and were that carriers generally let users unlock their fun when they met certain conditions. if you are a customer of a , not even necessarily after you completed the entire duration of your contract, you may be able to unlock that. however, that is not universal. there are some carriers that restrict you to him unlocking your phone. for instance some carriers only let you unlock your device if you are a subscriber. even if you purchased the phone from someone else who completed their contract, the carrier may not be willing to help you unlock that device even though you lawfully owned the phone.

to larry's point about preventing people who have promised not to unlock their device from doing so, i think we that these agreements should be enforced, that the contract will provisions between subscribers and their carriers ,o stay on the plan for a time typically two years, should be enforceable. what should the remedy be if one of the parties breaks that agreement? we could on the one hand have a common-law style approach where anallow for what is called efficient breach, but what we have today is a regime where if you unlock your cell phone, you have not only violated the contract, but you have violated the digital copyright act and subjected yourself to civil penalties, regardless of whether the decision you made was desirable. likewise, if you unlock your phone will fully or for financial gain, you may be subject to promote penalties.

and you cannot get help unlocking your device. anybody that facilitates unlocking of cell phones is themselves violating the digital millennium accurate act -- copyright act. though i think we agree that customers should not be able to unlock their device in a way that breaks the contract, the remedy if they do so should be that early termination fee. if you move overseas, there is no reason you should not be able to unlock your phone and pay the etf. doing so should not violate federal law, whether it is on the civil side -- >> we are in jargon free zone. that is an early termination fee. back ton you take us -- i was for a moment trying to think of a clever musical reference -- 1996 fails me. amca anticircumvention, what is that about?

i think this is what the commissioner was getting at with the blondie reference. if you have a digital file or digital content, and we're talking about copyright, and it is content that can be copyrighted whether it is music or words or video, it is copyrighted. it is difficult sometimes to enforce copyright when it is so easy to infringe, so easy to copy files when you have it easy dissemination, replication of content files on the internet. it is very easy to breach. what congress did with the bill was to say, look, content creators, you can put a digital lock around her content, and if somebody unlocks that lock, that is a crime. that is a violation of the law itself. is abouthat the dmca

it when it comes to cell phones, it is not clear to me what context is being created that content is being protected. content is being protected. some say it is the software that is being protected by the digital lock. that is strange. when americans overwhelmingly in the petition that we saw, over 100,000 americans asked for the right to unlock their cell phones, they're not asking for the right to unlock their cell phones in order to make hobbies of the firmware -- copies of the firmware. they are asking for the right to unlock to take it to a different carrier. that is very different from what the dmca was intended to do. if i could address something that larry brought up, i totally to haveat it is good different choices for consumers in the market, including subsidized phone option. you can have an option where you buy an unlocked phone -- an

iphone is probably about $600 if you buy it unlocked. or you can buy for $200 or $100 if you make a promise to stay with your carrier for two years. that is a subsidized model. but there is no reason why that choice between subsidized and withsidized cannot exist simply a contract regime. there is no reason why you need the dmca. as ryan mentioned, you make that promise, you sign the contract, and you are bound for those two whether you unlock the phone or not. if you unlock the phone and go to another carrier, you go from verizon to at&t, verizon will still send you the bill. one network,ates and at&t operates another network. , so if you -- ok move to france and you take your

gsm phone to france, rison will send you the bill. they do not care that he moved. -- verizon will send you the bill. they do not care that he moved. that should not be an insufficient -- that should not be a breach. >> there are networks in the u.s. that are compatible. let's take those examples. let's say am switching from at&t to t-mobile. what is the problem? why shouldn't i be able to unlock the phone? >> prior to the end of the contract? >> yes, let's say either that i want to end my contract, and i want to pay the etf or whatever the penalty might be, or i want to stay on the contract, but i want to unlock the phone when i take it overseas, or in the third example, my contract expired. >> [inaudible] if you say i want to go to

europe, i have heard anecdotally -- if you are of -- if you are a longtime subscriber, i do not think it is a big deal. if you want to pay the early termination fee and get out, i do not see a problem with that. in terms of is -- copyright, one can make a legitimate argument, and i am not unsympathetic to it, why are we dealing with copyright and terms of handset unlocking? approach it -- is a fix in there,, and i think the commissioner is probably right. we can put this mess a cell phone unlocking behind it. my view is that the copyright is incidental to the overall desire of getting an unlocked phone at a subsidized price. that is what this issue is all about. it does not have anything to do with copyright. i think people are using copyright -- when the registrar came out with its copyright decision, people had not focused on the unlocking issue, and it

became a cause. for those of us doing this a long time, i can 2007, i encourage you to read the wireless card issue -- this is about trying to get an unlocked phone at a subsidized price. that is what people are upset about. >> is that a fair characterization? >> i think it is important to know -- when the copyright office verse created the exemption in 2006, there were already entrepreneurs and individuals who were unlocking sent phones and being notices, dmca notices, that they were in violation. that theknow intention was to protect -- i do not think the intention should be to protect a certain business model with subsidized phones -- that being said, i find it hard

to understand why the idea of unlocking the phone and having subsidized cell phone service cannot be compatible. consumers should have a choice of whether or not they want to, when their contract ends or when they want to get out of the contract, they should be able to make that choice, that there is also -- that there is also no reason why -- but there is no reason why they cannot look to solberg -- so their phone or keep their phone or move it to another network. to me, this is about the ownership of a device. consumers should have the option to own a device and use the things they purchase how they like. the right to unlock does not change the contract rights. , it gives consumers greater choices. if a consumer enters a contract with at&t and they pay $200 for

their iphone, one year later, maybe they do not like at&t service. . taking advantage of an early termination fee and switching to another carrier is within their rights of the contract, and also underwrites as the owner of the device. it just seems like common sense to most consumers. i actually very much agree with you that there is a larger current of people tried to turn this into a conversation about subsidization of funds. for some peo